Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

The state may have credits to do things off planet, but the average earth citizen wouldn't be able to buy food, clothes repair parts etc, because earth doesn't deal in money.

If hypothetically Earth did have a welfare state system without money, and the rest of the Federation Member worlds didn't, this could serve to isolate Humans on their home world. And if Human colonies also had a more conventional financial system like the rest of the worlds, Humans emigrating off Earth would arrive at their new home penny-less.

Still, emigration would offer Humans an opportunity to live somewhere that they could succeed and be compensated for their efforts, even if they arrived with nothing. Some of my ancestors traveled to Brazil as indentured servants, but it was better than what was behind them.
James T. Kirk:"We're on over a thousand worlds and spreading out."

Might be the reason there are seemingly so many Humans in Starfleet, it's a chance to get out.

Nightdiamond wrote:

Too bad trek simply didn't go further to explain how humans don't use money or that there might be some type of currency exchange.

It would not have really taken that much, if Gene Roddenberry was serious about it being in the show. According to writer Ron Moore, the writers did ask him about it on several occasions. Roddenberry simple couldn't explain it. Moore thought it was because Roddenberry himself could not himself conceive of how it would be structured.

Instead of Riker saying that he did not carry money for a tip jar, when the piano player asked, Riker could have said something like money hasn't existed for centuries. (Which would make the tip jar on a Federation world kind of strange)

The writers could have had Quark complaining about the inability to sell his shuttle for savage in Earth's system, because Hew-mons long ago eliminated money.

The Neutral Zone would have been a excellent episode to have Picard tell the Businessman that the reason he's money was gone, is because everyone's money is gone.

If hypothetically Earth did have a welfare state system without money, and the rest of the Federation Member worlds didn't, this could serve to isolate Humans on their home world.

Still, emigration would offer Humans an opportunity to live somewhere that they could succeed and be compensated for their efforts, even if they arrived with nothing. Some of my ancestors traveled to Brazil as indentured servants, but it was better than what was behind them.

Might be the reason there are seemingly so many Humans in Starfleet, it's a chance to get out.

For the first time, you might have just explained why 23-24th century humans were always so eager to colonize even when it was difficult or presented a danger.

Humans have all the food and basic needs and luxuries they could require, but they have to stay on earth to enjoy them.

The Federation doesn't prepare or support them to function in another society or place that requires currency, so basically they have to stay on earth.

Case in point; Jake Sisko wasn't able to purchase even the simplest item, because as a human he simply had no money.

Nog on the other hand, (who was the same age as Jake) could easily do it. Jake was helpless and had to rely on Nog to do anything that involved money.

And in many societies, that would include food, transportation, shelter, clothing, basic necessities.

For the first time, you might have just explained why 23-24th century humans were always so eager to colonize even when it was difficult or presented a danger.

Humans have all the food and basic needs and luxuries they could require, but they have to stay on earth to enjoy them.

The Federation doesn't prepare or support them to function in another society or place that requires currency, so basically they have to stay on earth.

Case in point; Jake Sisko wasn't able to purchase even the simplest item, because as a human he simply had no money.

Nog on the other hand, (who was the same age as Jake) could easily do it. Jake was helpless and had to rely on Nog to do anything that involved money.

And in many societies, that would include food, transportation, shelter, clothing, basic necessities.

That's good. Roddenberry's utopian 24th century humans, if they did represent canon ST, outsmarted themselves. They thought they were evolving beyond petty concerns but only succeeded in turning themselves into penniless serfs. And now they just want to escape.

There's nothing self-contradictory about those things in themselves, obviously. It's the fact that there are other things in canon which, y'know, contradict the implied or express use of money which are contradictory. Thus rendering canon self-contradictory on this issue.

And by "other things" you're referring to that single line of dialog in First Contact? There was never any consideration of there being no money during the production of TOS in the 1960's. And I can't recall ST: Enterprise discussing the subject one way or the other. Nor do I believe Voyager ever directly brought up the subject of no money.

During the creation of TNG, Gene Roddenberry express a vague idea of there being no money in the 24th century. But when pressed by the shows writers, he was unable to explain what he meant in even the most simplest of terms. The writers themselves lived in a society with money, whether deliberately or unintentionally, the existence of money in the 24th century worked it's way into the scripts.

If you say that there is no money whatsoever in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th centuries, you basically building that supposition on a single clear overt statement. Which flies in the face of dozens and dozens of examples of a more conventional financial system.

It not like it is a fifty fifty mix of yes money and no money examples. Your isolated evidence does not make the five series' position on money "contradictory."

The idea was expressed more than once and you know that, T'G. Star Trek IV for example:

Gillian: "Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century?"

Kirk: "Well, we don't."

And we didn't see Gillian offering to pay that pizza and beer with cash. She may have been pulling out her Visa or MasterCharge, i.e. using credit not cash. And the moneyless concept was repeated on Star Trek DS9:

Simple logic is all that you need. It seems Roddenberry's intent was to go with the moneyless future scenario as sci-fi writer Iain Banks was already doing at that time. Otherwise, why would Star Trek bother to bring it up not once but multiple times?

Of course, many different writers worked on the show and like you indicated, they come from our monetized era, so naturally they may have had some difficulty negotiating the moneyless society concept. And with the time constraints of television productions they wouldn't have had much time to explore the concept. Maybe they should've read more Iain Banks or study history a bit more.

"Bread, meat, oil, wine, and certain other products were distributed gratis from the community center where the peasants deposited their products....

'Are you not afraid,' I asked, 'that unlimited quantities of free wine will lead to excessive drinking?'

'By no means. No one gets drunk here. We have been living under this system for a year, and everyone is satisfied....'"
-- The Anarchist Collectives by Sam Dolgoff.

Of all the strange new worlds Star Trek explores, it's the non-capitalist future, without poverty, that people have the most trouble with.

And I don't really buy that whats objectionable is the lack of explanation. Its the boldness of saying humanity has to grow up to reach the stars. And that growing up means going beyond religion, nationalism, and capitalism.

What is more likely is a mass extinction, huge population loss, and crawl back out of another dark age. But I prefer Roddenberry's worst ideas to more of the same.

Humans have all the food and basic needs and luxuries they could require, but they have to stay on earth to enjoy them.

The Federation doesn't prepare or support them to function in another society or place that requires currency, so basically they have to stay on earth.

That's good. Roddenberry's utopian 24th century humans, if they did represent canon ST, outsmarted themselves. They thought they were evolving beyond petty concerns but only succeeded in turning themselves into penniless serfs. And now they just want to escape.

Ironic--humans have all that they want, absolutely free, and yet deliberately flee from it, and choose life in a colony where they have to work, struggle and use money to live.

But if you watch some episodes of TNG and DS9, like the one where the woman runs a colony like a cult, it is there.

CaptainStoner wrote:

Of all the strange new worlds Star Trek explores, it's the non-capitalist future, without poverty, that people have the most trouble with.

And I don't really buy that whats objectionable is the lack of explanation. Its the boldness of saying humanity has to grow up to reach the stars. And that growing up means going beyond religion, nationalism, and capitalism.

What is more likely is a mass extinction, huge population loss, and crawl back out of another dark age. But I prefer Roddenberry's worst ideas to more of the same.

One thing I like is that Roddenberry focused on humans creating a much better society than modern times.

Most other sci fi shows almost always focus on the advanced technology and aliens.

I think what might get some fans is the preaching--some of it light, some heavy.

Like, there's no television-style entertainment in the 24th century because humans have outgrown such primitive habits.

Only later on in other the series, however, we start seeing exactly that, because you can only watch plays, ballets, violin concerts and poetry readings so much.

The idea was expressed more than once and you know that, T'G. Star Trek IV for example:

Gillian: "Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century?"

Kirk: "Well, we don't."

But remember TheGoodNews, Kirk also spoke in one of the movies about having sold his house, the word "sold" has a very specific meaning in the English language. The word "money" on the other hand has a few different meanings. Kirk couldn't have meant no money in any form, because this would mean he couldn't have sold his house.

By no money Kirk could have meant nothing that could be used to pay for food and drink in the mid 1980's. Kirk: "Well, we don't ... use US Federal Reserve Notes, and we don't have a late twentieth century line of credit."

And we didn't see Gillian offering to pay that pizza and beer with cash.

Given that she invited him, she should have been the one to pay in the first place.

She may have been pulling out her Visa or MasterCharge, i.e. using credit not cash.

I don't think they showed what she was digging for in her purse.

... Visa or MasterCharge, i.e. using credit not cash

I'm not exactly sure the point you trying to make here. Credit cards are a form of payment.

Gillian has a line of credit with the card issuer, the merchant's account instantly received payment when the card was accepted (money), Gillian later reimbursed the card issuer's account (money again).

The idea was expressed more than once and you know that, T'G. Star Trek IV for example:

Gillian: "Don't tell me, they don't use money in the 23rd century?"

Kirk: "Well, we don't."

But remember TheGoodNews, Kirk also spoke in one of the movies about having sold his house, the word "sold" has a very specific meaning in the English language. The word "money" on the other hand has a few different meanings. Kirk couldn't have meant no money in any form, because this would mean he couldn't have sold his house.

By no money Kirk could have meant nothing that could be used to pay for food and drink in the mid 1980's. Kirk: "Well, we don't ... use US Federal Reserve Notes, and we don't have a late twentieth century line of credit."

And we didn't see Gillian offering to pay that pizza and beer with cash.

Given that she invited him, she should have been the one to pay in the first place.

I don't think they showed what she was digging for in her purse.

I'm not exactly sure the point you trying to make here. Credit cards are a form of payment.

Gillian has a line of credit with the card issuer, the merchant's account instantly received payment when the card was accepted (money), Gillian later reimbursed the card issuer's account (money again).

Electronic financial transfers (money).

Jake: "... I don't have any money," which is a strange thing for Jake to say, what happen to the money he did have only a few episodes back? You know, when Jake (the Human) did have money.

If you didn't live and grow up in the 20th/21st centuries, you would have no idea how the world economy works. I've always been satisfied to tell myself that the Federation economy is just too complex for me to understand. When Jake Sisko says Fed citizens don't have money, I take that to mean money as we know it.

A society, no matter how socialist, has to have currency to trade with other societies. There are things that cannot be replicated (time, energy, land, art) and ownership of them has to be determined somehow.

I can accept that the Federation is money-free. I can also accept that I have no idea what money-free actually means. One look at Trek tells me that I don't need to understand how it works, just that it does work.

there don't seem to be practicing Jews in Star Trek's future, either. I wouldn't take the absence of gays too seriously.

Understandably non-heterosexual people are troubled by the absence of LGBT characters in Trek ... but last time I checked Trek has rarely played the identity politics game but rather tried to be universally progressive. Furthermore all this progressive stuff is usually implied via the background of Trek, not via foreground characters (if we exclude Uhura).

__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger

there don't seem to be practicing Jews in Star Trek's future, either. I wouldn't take the absence of gays too seriously.

Understandably non-heterosexual people are troubled by the absence of LGBT characters in Trek ... but last time I checked Trek has rarely played the identity politics game but rather tried to be universally progressive. Furthermore all this progressive stuff is usually implied via the background of Trek, not via foreground characters (if we exclude Uhura).

I don't know about that.

What about Chekov and his pride in his Russian heritage?

Picard and his French?

Sisko identifies as a Black man, O'Brien as Irish, Chakotay has his "Indian" beliefs, etc.

the Star Trek future for Humans doesn't seem to be a universal culture one for Humans.

Chekov was mainly used as a joke, Picard seems more like a French guy who is into British stuff (Shakespeare, black tea) to me and Chakotay's Indian episodes sucked badly. There was this religious nonsense with the protection animal or whatever and Janeway the scientist went along with it? This was indeed political correctness at its worst.
But in general I agree, you are right and I am wrong, Trek does indeed often play the identity politics game.

__________________
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer. - former US Secretary of State and unconvicted war criminal Henry Kissinger

. . . Ironic - -humans have all that they want, absolutely free, and yet deliberately flee from it, and choose life in a colony where they have to work, struggle and use money to live.

Not at all ironic if you accept the premise of the TOS ep "This Side of Paradise."

Maybe we weren't meant for paradise. Maybe we were meant to fight our way through. Struggle, claw our way up, scratch for every inch of the way. Maybe we can't stroll to the music of the lute. We must march to the sound of drums.

Humans have an inherent need to face challenges and overcome obstacles, to work for what they receive and and be fairly rewarded for their efforts. Call it the Puritan work ethic or whatever you like, but getting all your needs for free, even if it's possible, just doesn't feel right.

__________________“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”

If you didn't live and grow up in the 20th/21st centuries, you would have no idea how the world economy works. I've always been satisfied to tell myself that the Federation economy is just too complex for me to understand. When Jake Sisko says Fed citizens don't have money, I take that to mean money as we know it.

A society, no matter how socialist, has to have currency to trade with other societies. There are things that cannot be replicated (time, energy, land, art) and ownership of them has to be determined somehow.

I usually agree with this idea, but the problem is, Jake says he doesn't have money because he's human. Not because he's a teenager or out of money at the moment.

He then is shown as being completely helpless to buy anything that involved money. Nog OTOH, could easily do it.

Apparently Jake was just going to (Starfleet) replicators for all his personal needs for free.

It suggests humans are simply living off replicators absolutely free, though they do have jobs that they do , but only to better humanity, not for pay.

scotpens wrote:

Nightdiamond wrote:

. . . Ironic - -humans have all that they want, absolutely free, and yet deliberately flee from it, and choose life in a colony where they have to work, struggle and use money to live.

Not at all ironic if you accept the premise of the TOS ep "This Side of Paradise."

Humans have an inherent need to face challenges and overcome obstacles, to work for what they receive and and be fairly rewarded for their efforts. Call it the Puritan work ethic or whatever you like, but getting all your needs for free, even if it's possible, just doesn't feel right.

This is the premise then; humans don't use money among themselves--no currency.

A person wants to 'buy' a piece of property from a friend. Humans don't use money. Picard stated this clearly on two separate occasions.